home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
- Path: sparky!uunet!paladin.american.edu!auvm!SE.ALCBEL.BE!CGRA
- X-Envelope-To: EMUSIC-L@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
- X-Vms-To: in"EMUSIC-L@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU"
- Message-ID: <01GSL5P87WGGC50KZL@btmv56>
- Newsgroups: bit.listserv.emusic-l
- Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 18:33:00 GMT+0100
- Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List <EMUSIC-L@AUVM.BITNET>
- From: CGRA%BTMA74@SE.ALCBEL.BE
- Subject: Re: PHIL COMP
- Comments: To: EMUSIC-L@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
- Lines: 66
-
- "Bob" writes,
-
- >... Most music I've listened to only
- >has 2 or 3 main melodic elements form which the piece is created. Anymore than
- >this gets confusing for me the composer and listeners.
-
- "Most music I've listened to" could apply to rather a lot of music or very
- little, it's kinda hard to tell.
-
- You can write a whole piece using a single theme, and really strain the user's
- concentration. Or you can write highly episodic music which brims over with
- themes, and make virtually no demands on the listener (think of an overture for
- an operetta, especially G&S). Integrating four or five themes to make a true
- whole is admittedly difficult - it takes a Bach to do it and make it sound like
- music, and a Mozart to make it sound easy.
-
- >...music elemenets dictates that they be refined and polished so they can
- >support an entire piece of music. The best analogy is the minot third form
- >Beethoven's 5th symphony thse 4 notes provide the basis for the whole first
- >theme.
-
- I make it a major third the first time (G-Eb), followed by a minor one (F-D).
-
- > All the other parts you mention harmony, counterpoint, timbre play an
- >important part in any music. I don't think you have to compose music based on
- >the performance meduim, electronic or accoustic. There are certain advantages
- >that synthesizers provide that can't be denied. The wealth of timbres
- >available
- >to composers is infinite, the control a composer has using synthesizers gives
- >me the the same thing Mozart had, a resident orchestra at my command to perform
- >my music the way I wish it performed.
-
- No, that was Haydn. (And a lot of later composer-conductors, of course).
-
- > Sorry to jump up on the soap box, but as classically trained composer,
-
- Sorry to seem to carp, but I don't like to see inaccuracies going uncorrected.
- In particular, Haydn and Mozart represent two different models of the role of
- the composer (or any creator) in society, so it is a pity to confuse them.
- Haydn had a steady job, with a substantial administrative element, which gave
- him (almost) limitless creative freedom. Mozart was constitutionally unsuited
- to regular employment, and found his freedom elsewhere. Nowadays Haydn would
- be working in a university and Mozart would be freelancing. (Yes I know Haydn
- went freelancing at an age when most of us would be retired. So do professors.)
-
- >I appreciate the new and exciting timbres available today yet I have yet to
- >find a substitue for good planning and pen-and-paper composing. I've tried
- >several times to just sit at the sequencer and "compose" but, for me it just
- >doesn't work.
-
- Composers have always covered a broad spectrum from pure pen-and-paper men to
- keyboard explorers. Most use a mixture - an idea forms itself in the "mind's
- ear", is maybe jotted straight down on paper or worked out on a keyboard
- instrument, and then goes through a series of iterations between paper and
- piano as the idea is elaborated. Personally I find the piano is of limited
- use, as its rather special timbre gives a very poor indication of how some-
- thing will sound if sung by a choir or played by six french horns (say).
- _Good_ orchestral synth sounds could help here.
-
- Of course if you are Mozart you compose a complete symphony in your head and
- then dump it on paper in streamer mode, writing faster than the copyists can
- handle. Sickening little prat.
-
- Merry Christmas,
-
- Chris
-